Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/29/16
-
Industrial Chemicals Unit Helps Limit BASF's First-Quarter Profit Fall
Apr 29, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
Chemical company BASF's adjusted operating profit fell a less than expected 8 percent in the first quarter as cost cuts and rising orders in March in its industrial chemicals business helped offset a slump in oil and gas. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: ‘Styrene is Not Polystyrene’
Apr 29, 2016 | Pack World
By Anne Marie Mohan
The American Chemistry Council has issued a statement in response to the addition by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of styrene to its Proposition 65 list, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, to assure consumers of the safety of polystyrene in packaging. -
Will Chemical Safety Bill Shortchange EPA?
Apr 29, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
The best car won’t run if you don’t put gas in it. Even if Congress modestly improves the federal chemical safety law—and there are lots of reasons to think it won’t—the changes won’t mean much if the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have enough money to implement them. -
EPA Announces Safer Choice Partner Awards
Apr 29, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced 24 winners of its Safer Choice Partner of the Year Award. -
Dear Congress: Burning Wood is Not the Future of Energy
Apr 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
Senators patted themselves on the back last week after passing a wide-ranging energy bill, a feat that seems amazing given the partisanship on Capitol Hill and the deep divisions between the parties on fossil fuels in particular. But the hype was too good to be true: The bill has at least one glaring flaw that must be changed before President Obama considers signing it. -
Challengers Want 5 Hours for Epic Court Brawl
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The 157 parties suing U.S. EPA over a major climate change rule are asking federal judges to hear five hours of oral arguments over two days in June. -
14 States Ask EPA for More Carbon Rule Info
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
A group of 14 states is asking U.S. EPA for more information and technical assistance on the Clean Power Plan while a Supreme Court stay on implementing it is in effect. -
Cheniere Shipments Crack Open New Markets for U.S. Gas
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Eight weeks in and seven cargoes out, Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass natural gas liquefaction and export plant has found customers around the world: in Brazil, India, the Middle East and Europe. -
Houston Firm Rescinds Crude Transport Request
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Heavy crude oil from Houston-based Plains LPG will not be traveling through 98-year-old pipelines beneath a Michigan river. -
Massive Texas Eastern Pipeline Explosion Reported in Southwest Pennsylvania
Apr 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Spectra Energy Corp. said early Friday that it was responding to a massive explosion and fire on a portion of its Texas Eastern pipeline in Westmoreland County, PA, about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh. -
Most States Do Bare Minimum on Fire-Foam Contamination
Apr 29, 2016 | Washington Post
By Jennifer McDermott
The military is checking U.S. bases for potential groundwater contamination from a toxic firefighting foam, but most states so far show little inclination to examine civilian sites for the same threat. -
Toxic Contamination Found on Portions of Tracks at Penn Station
Apr 29, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Andrew Tangel
For all its ills, New York Penn Station can count one more: toxic contamination on at least two of its tracks. -
Advancing STB Reform: Congress Puts Its Money Where Its Mouth Is
Apr 29, 2016 | Freight Rail Reform
By Rail Customer Coalition
The Senate helped lead the way again on Surface Transportation Board (STB) reform last week, but it might have been easy to miss. As was widely reported, the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee passed a $57 billion measure to fund a number of transportation priorities for fiscal year 2017. -
Iowa Identifies Gaps in Crude-by-Rail Safety
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Regulators in Iowa have issued more than two dozen safety recommendations following a close look at their readiness for a rail accident involving oil or ethanol. -
Why Cities Are So Well-Suited to Renewable-Energy Growth
Apr 29, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kate Gordon
Last week, 175 countries signed onto a global agreement to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the face of the threat of climate change. Many of those same countries—particularly India, China, and Nigeria—are simultaneously experiencing major urbanization trends that will move billions of people into cities over the next several decades.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Industrial Chemicals Unit Helps Limit BASF's First-Quarter Profit Fall
Apr 29, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
Chemical company BASF's adjusted operating profit fell a less than expected 8 percent in the first quarter as cost cuts and rising orders in March in its industrial chemicals business helped offset a slump in oil and gas.
The world's largest chemical company by sales reported earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), adjusted for one-off items, of 1.91 billion euros (1.5 billion pounds), compared with the average forecast for 1.73 billion in a Reuters poll of analysts.
"In the first two months of the year, customers maintained a very cautious ordering approach. In March, however, business picked up in many of our divisions," finance chief Hans-Ulrich Engel told analysts on a call on Friday.
Earnings at BASF's basic petrochemicals division fell 36 percent, hurt by lower prices and volumes. The market had been bracing for a plunge of almost 50 percent.
Shares in BASF were 0.7 percent higher at 73.24 euros by 0806 GMT, making them the second-biggest gainers on the German blue-chip DAX index, which was 1.3 percent lower.
BASF is under pressure from growing Chinese competition in chemical building blocks such as caprolactam, a precursor material for polymers in tyre cord, textile fibres and power tool housings.
The group, whose products include catalytic converters, insulation foams and automotive coatings, said cost cutting was on track and that it would consider shedding more businesses facing too much competition.
"We will continue to refine our portfolio in 2016. Our goal is to concentrate on high-growth businesses," Chief Executive Kurt Bock said in a statement.
It has hived off units including industrial coatings, for a narrower focus on car coatings, and a smaller polyolefin catalyst business.
The group affirmed its forecast for a significant decline in 2016 sales - due to the sale of its gas trading business and as it adjusts prices to lower energy and raw material costs - and for adjusted EBIT to be slightly below the year-earlier level but repeated that the goal was ambitious and depended on oil prices.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/04/29/business/29reuters-basf-se-results.html?_r=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: ‘Styrene is Not Polystyrene’
Apr 29, 2016 | Pack World
By Anne Marie Mohan
The American Chemistry Council has issued a statement in response to the addition by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of styrene to its Proposition 65 list, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, to assure consumers of the safety of polystyrene in packaging.
Explains ACC, styrene is a liquid substance used to make polystyrene, an inert plastic used to make many consumer products. “There should be no confusion between styrene and polystyrene; these are two different materials,” ACC says.
“Consumers can be confident that California’s Proposition 65 action on styrene does not affect the decades’-long safety assessments of polystyrene packaging used for foodservice,” says Mike Levy, Senior Director for ACC’s Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group. “For more than 50 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that polystyrene is safe for use in foodservice packaging, and regulatory bodies around the world agree, including theEuropean Commission/European Food Safety Authority.
“There are important and obvious differences between styrene and polystyrene. Styrene is a liquid, and polystyrene is an inert solid plastic. They are fundamentally unalike and display distinctly different properties. Styrene is a raw material used to create high-performance plastics, car tires, carpet backing, and reinforced fiberglass composites, such as those used in bathtubs, automobile body panels, and wind turbines. Once these products are manufactured, they are inert.
“Officials in California said their decision to add styrene to the Prop 65 list was based on styrene’s listing in the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 12th Report on Carcinogens in 2011. California officials determined that NTP’s listing merits a Prop 65 listing. NTP does not question the safety of polystyrene foodservice packaging. As the NTP director was widely quoted, ‘In finished products, certainly styrene is not an issue.’
“Polystyrene is an FDA-approved and hygienic material of choice for foodservice packaging to serve foods in schools, hospitals, restaurants, food carts, and sports stadiums. Its inherent insulation properties maintain food temperatures and help keep food fresh, hot or cold, and ready-to-eat. Polystyrene is also used in a variety of other everyday consumer products, such as cushioning for shipping delicate electronics, energy saving insulation, kitchen appliances, smoke detectors, and toys.”
http://www.packworld.com/sustainability/material-health/acc-styrene-not-polystyrene
-
Will Chemical Safety Bill Shortchange EPA?
Apr 29, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
The best car won’t run if you don’t put gas in it. Even if Congress modestly improves the federal chemical safety law—and there are lots of reasons to think it won’t—the changes won’t mean much if the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have enough money to implement them.
Last year, the House and Senate passed bills to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the nation’s badly broken federal chemical safety law. Neither bill went far enough, but now key members from both chambers are attempting to reconcile the differences between the two versions so that they can send a bill to the President’s desk.
A critical question is whether the reconciled bill will provide EPA with enough funding to ensure chemical safety.
Based on EWG’s calculations, the agency needs $90 million per year just to assess the1,000 existing chemicals that EPA scientists believe should be evaluated for safety over the next 20 years. The EPA will need a second tranche of funds to assess new chemicals being invented by chemical companies, to order more testing, to set priorities for safety reviews and to carry out the essential tasks of collecting, maintaining, releasing and protecting information about all those chemicals.
While cost varies significantly per chemical, an EPA official told a Congressionalhearing last year that the agency estimated it would spend $2.5 million to evaluate and regulate a single chemical -- $1 million for the safety assessment and $1.5 million to issue regulations for that chemical.
The official estimated that of the 1,000 chemicals needing assessments, around 200 chemicals would likely pose risks and would need to be regulated.
The other 800 chemicals flagged for evaluation were deemed unlikely to threaten people’s health but would still need to be assessed for safety.
So let’s do the numbers.
We calculate that each safety assessment is more likely to cost $1.5 million, because data are sparse for many of these substances. We estimate that EPA must spend another $1.5 million for regulations for every chemical, as suggested by the EPA. The total per chemical: $3 million.
If all 200 chemicals projected by the EPA actually undergo this two-pronged process, the EPA will spend around $600 million.
For the 800 chemicals that likely need a safety assessment but no regulations, the EPA would spend around $1.2 billion.
The total for 1,000 chemicals flagged for investigation: $1.8 billion.
To complete this critical work in 20 years, the agency would have to assess 50 chemicals a year, at an annual cost of about $90 million.
Neither the House nor Senate bill contemplates funding of such magnitude.
The House bill leaves the funding issue primarily to the mercy of congressional appropriators. Chemical companies would pay fees to the EPA to speed the evaluations of certain chemicals, but investigations of all other chemicals would have to be covered by taxpayer dollars.
The Senate bill asks industry to foot part of the bill, to the tune of $25 million (adjusted for inflation every three years) or 25 percent of total program costs, whichever number is lower. Like the House bill, the Senate measure would require the chemical industry to pay for reviews of chemicals it requests, plus the fees authorized by the legislation.
By imposing fees on chemical manufacturers, the Senate bill goes further than the House bill in helping to fund the EPA’s mission to make chemicals safer. However, it still falls short of what’s needed.
In addition to financing reviews of existing chemicals, the fees must also cover EPA’s work to:Collect, process, review, provide access to, or protect from disclosure information on chemicals;Review notices and make safety determinations on new chemicals and impose restrictions as needed;Make decisions on which chemicals to give priority for safety evaluations.
The EPA’s total costs to implement an updated chemical safety law are likely to exceed the $90 million a year needed to review existing chemicals. Without a significant budget increase, it is doubtful the EPA will have enough money to do its job.
In a budget document for fiscal year 2017, the EPA asked Congress for just $67.2 million for the current law’s Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program to address the safety of new and existing chemicals— and also to address legacy chemical pollutants such as Monsanto’s PCBs, which are contaminating schools and rivers across the country. That request falls far short of the $90 million needed to cover reviews of existing chemicals on the market, let alone the cost of evaluating new chemicals and cleaning up existing pollutants.
The EPA is already understaffed, underfunded and a favorite target for federal budget cuts. Early last year, its personnel number dropped to 14,746 employees, the lowest level since 1989. If the EPA must rely solely on appropriations, as the House bill suggests, it won’t be able to carry out the Congressional mandate of assessing chemicals for safety.
The obvious solution would be to increase the industry’s share of the bill.
The chemical industry boasted nearly $40 billion in profits in 2014 and can easily afford to pay well more than the $25 million in fees contemplated by the Senate bill to ensure that the chemicals it creates are safe. In fact, pesticide manufacturers, whose products are regulated by a separate statute, paid registration and maintenance fees of nearly $45 million last year—$20 million more than the Senate bill proposes to charge manufacturers of chemicals covered by the 1976 Toxic Substances Act.
As Congressional leaders reconcile the House and Senate chemical bills, let’s hope they give EPA enough gas in its tank.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/04/will-chemical-safety-bill-shortchange-epa
-
EPA Announces Safer Choice Partner Awards
Apr 29, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced 24 winners of its Safer Choice Partner of the Year Award.
At a 28 April event, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy recognised the winners for their voluntary efforts to manufacture, design, promote and use cleaning and household products considered safer for human health and the environment.
Among the winners are:
· trade groups the Consumer Specialty Products Association and ISSA, the Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association;
· NGOs the Environmental Defense Fund, American Sustainable Business Council, and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families;
· retailers Albertsons Companies and Wegmans Food Markets;
· chemical company BASF Corporation; and
· formulators the Clorox Company and Seventh Generation.
The Safer Choice programme – formerly Design for the Environment (DfE) – encourages the development of consumer products using safer chemical alternatives, and helps consumers identify those products through labelling.
To use the Safer Choice label on products, a manufacturer must submit detailed product ingredient information to the EPA. The products must only contain those ingredients that are on the EPA’s Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL) of more than 700 ingredients, which have been reviewed against the human health and environmental criteria of the EPA's Safer Choice Standard.
"Everyone wants products with ingredients that are safer for their kids, pets, communities and the environment," said Ms McCarthy. "Using technology and innovation to turn challenges into profitable opportunities makes our businesses stronger and more competitive, our families and workers healthier, and our environment cleaner."
Winners were announced in five categories:
· safer formulator-manufacturer;
· safer chemical innovator;
· purchaser/distributor;
· retailer; and
· programme supporter
The programme now has over 500 partners, with more than 2,000 products that qualify to carry the Safer Choice logo.
Awards will be presented at a ceremony on 9 May in Washington, DC.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47067/epa-announces-safer-choice-partner-awards
-
Dear Congress: Burning Wood is Not the Future of Energy
Apr 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
Senators patted themselves on the back last week after passing a wide-ranging energy bill, a feat that seems amazing given the partisanship on Capitol Hill and the deep divisions between the parties on fossil fuels in particular. But the hype was too good to be true: The bill has at least one glaring flaw that must be changed before President Obama considers signing it.
There is a lot to like in the bill and the process that led to its passage. Lawmakers put aside major points of contention and moved forward with items they could agree on — or at least live with. The bill authorizes hefty increases in the energy research budget. It includes programs to make buildings more energy-efficient. It would harden the electrical system against cyberattacks and make the grid more capable of taking on new sources of renewable power. The bill would also speed approvals of natural gas export facilities, which will not please some environmentalists but is nevertheless a net positive step. In return, the bill gives environmentalists a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which directs federal oil and gas royalties toward preserving natural landscapes.
But the bill also would command the Environmental Protection Agency to “recognize biomass” — that is, plant matter such as wood harvested from forests — “as a renewable energy source” because of its “carbon-neutrality.” This is a rank example of Congress legislating science rather than allowing agency experts to make determinations based on facts, and the results could be very bad for the environment.
Burning wood produces carbon dioxide emissions; the case for treating biomass energy as carbon-neutral is that, as plants grow back, they recapture carbon dioxide from the air. Yet burning biomass releases a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere all at once, and plant regrowth takes time. Meanwhile, scientists warn that the planet could reach climate tipping points soon. This alone is reason not to treat biomass and, say, wind energy as equivalent.
Moreover, trees will continue growing, sequestering carbon dioxide all along, if they are not harvested for energy, which calls into question the net carbon benefits of chopping them down and growing new ones. Using wood for electricity also means that other industries, such as paper, might have to get their raw materials from other places, which could end up increasing deforestation. The country cannot get much electricity out of biomass, anyway. Tim Searchinger, a Princeton University researcher, calculates that obtaining 4 percent of the country’s electricity from biomass would require 74 percent of its timber harvest.
Biomass advocates respond that the product is better than fossil fuels. That might be so, but it is not an excuse to treat biomass like any other renewable.
Sixty-five experts, including Mr. Searchinger, warned senators in February against including the biomass language in the bill, predicting that it would “promote deforestation in the U.S. and elsewhere and make climate change much worse.” Lawmakers should have listened to these experts and left the science to the EPA. They have one more chance when they merge the Senate and House versions of the bill.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/burning-wood-is-not-the-future-of-energy/2016/04/28/9cd9376c-08b9-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html
-
Challengers Want 5 Hours for Epic Court Brawl
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The 157 parties suing U.S. EPA over a major climate change rule are asking federal judges to hear five hours of oral arguments over two days in June.
The request is a major departure from the amount of time usually allowed for lawyers to make their case in court. Arguments in a typical case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last about 20 to 40 minutes, with several cases heard on the same day. But both foes and supporters of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan argue that this epic legal battle deserves more time.
In their request to the court yesterday, EPA's challengers -- including 27 states and many industry groups -- asked judges on the D.C. Circuit to spread out arguments over two days, a move the court previously signaled it would consider. That lengthy schedule is appropriate, petitioners said, "given the large number of issues raised in this litigation and their scope, the increased word allotment for merits briefing, and the technical complexity of the rulemaking."
The Clean Power Plan, a rule to curb power plants' greenhouse gas emissions, "is perhaps the most costly, complex, and far-reaching regulatory program in American history," EPA's challengers said. The rule is currently on hold after opponents persuaded the Supreme Court to freeze it while the lower court battle plays out.
EPA and its allies, meanwhile, urged the court to keep the arguments shorter.
The agency -- along with 18 states, environmentalists, industry groups and other supporters -- suggested that the arguments be completed in one day, lasting a total of three hours and 10 minutes.
Both sides urged the court to break up arguments into blocks, allotting time for specific challenges over EPA's authority to issue the rule, arguments over the procedures used by the agency and others.
While most of the petitioners signed on to a single proposal, the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute and several other groups and individuals filed a separate proposal urging oral arguments over EPA's consideration of the rule's costs and benefits.
'Precedent' for lengthy disputes in big cases
The D.C. Circuit occasionally has allowed for lengthy oral arguments in other complex cases, including a major 2012 dispute over the Obama administration's climate policies.
The climate lawsuits challenged EPA's finding that greenhouse gases "endangered" public health and welfare, the agency's "tailpipe" rule setting greenhouse gas standards for cars and light-duty trucks, and two other regulations regarding when and how stationary sources would be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
In that case, the judges heard oral arguments over two days in February 2012, scheduled for two hours and 10 minutes on Day One, followed by two hours and 30 minutes on Day Two. Arguments often go longer than scheduled.
Tom Lorenzen, an attorney at Crowell & Moring representing electric cooperatives challenging the Clean Power Plan, said those arguments were "almost identical in length to industry's proposal here." He added, "This proposed schedule actually seems in line with the amount of time the D.C. Circuit has devoted to climate change cases, which are, after all, among the most important environmental cases of our generation."
Jim Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney and former Justice Department attorney, said there is "certainly precedent for long oral arguments in significant cases and where there are multiple parties."
The Clean Power Plan case "is certainly not the most significant or complex case the court has ever faced," but "judges are human so only have so much time they can sit, absorb and engage in a given time." Still, he said, "I think the court will be likely to schedule a relatively lengthy oral argument, including beyond the three hours proposed by EPA."
The filings from both sides also indicate which lawyers are gearing up to argue, although that could change depending on what the parties decide after the court issues its argument schedule.
EPA's supporters listed five administration attorneys: Justice Department lawyers Eric Hostetler, Amanda Berman, Chloe Kolman, Norman Rave and Brian Lynk. They also listed Kevin Poloncarz, who's representing power companies supporting the rule; and Sean Donahue, who's representing environmental groups in the case.
State and industry challengers also noted their planned roster of lawyers: Elbert Lin, West Virginia's solicitor general; Peter Keisler, who represents the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups; Allison Wood, who represents utilities; Paul Seby, North Dakota's special assistant attorney general; Matthew Frederick, Texas deputy solicitor general; Lorenzen, representing electric cooperatives; Misha Tseytlin, Wisconsin solicitor general; William Brownell, who represents utilities; David Rivkin Jr., representing Oklahoma; and Laurence Tribe, who represents coal companies.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/29/stories/1060036504
-
14 States Ask EPA for More Carbon Rule Info
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
A group of 14 states is asking U.S. EPA for more information and technical assistance on the Clean Power Plan while a Supreme Court stay on implementing it is in effect.
The states argue that they should move forward with planning for the rule because they have "important obligations to protect public health and the environment." Opponents say all work on the rule should be halted.
The group, organized by the Georgetown Climate Center, asked EPA in a letter to air chief Janet McCabe yesterday to help "in a manner that is respectful of the Supreme Court's stay of the regulations until the conclusion of pending litigation."
Air and environment agency leaders signed on from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
Two of the states, Maryland and Massachusetts, have Republican governors who are not on the record supporting the rule but are in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In particular, they want more information about model carbon-trading rules -- which EPA originally intended to finalize this summer -- and a Clean Energy Incentive Program for early action on renewables and low-income energy efficiency, which the agency sent this week to the Office of Management and Budget for review (ClimateWire, April 27).
They also want to know more about tracking systems for carbon allowances or credits, as well as provable ways to measure and verify savings from energy efficiency programs.
Minnesota is one state that has been moving full speed ahead with rule planning.
"We don't want to be looking at potential plan elements that are unlikely to be provable," said Melissa Kuskie, an air policy specialist with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Even if EPA can't formalize some of the information, Kuskie said unofficial guidance would be helpful.
She noted that "EPA has a pretty difficult challenge in trying to be supportive of states who are continuing to work on this and honoring the intent of the stay."
EPA yesterday said it was reviewing the letter and pointed to recent news that the agency had sent the Clean Energy Incentive Program out for review, in an attempt to give state officials more specifics to work with.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said her agency is willing to help states with any questions they have on the rule, arguing that kind of assistance is fully within the scope of the stay.
'Irresponsible and a disservice'
The letter could provide EPA some political cover from critics as the agency continues to work with states under the stay. EPA may be able to point to it as proof that states are voluntarily seeking help.
The American Energy Alliance, a conservative group that has been encouraging state lawmakers to block funding for rule planning, called the letter "an attempt to move forward with the regulation while the stay is in place."
"It is both irresponsible and a disservice to ratepayers," said AEA Vice President for Policy Dan Simmons, who argues the rule will cause huge electricity price increases.
Simmons said the signers of the letter are "trying to scare other states and utilities into complying with the regulation while it is under review by the courts."
Under the stay, EPA has acknowledged it cannot require states to take any action, including submitting initial plans in 2016 or starting to make carbon cuts by making changes in their electricity sectors.
In a policy brief released earlier this week, the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity argued a stay is different from an injunction and does not prohibit publishing more rule components.
"Continuing this work would be consistent with the past actions of both Republican and Democratic administrations. And EPA is justified in continuing this work, in order to aid states that want to voluntarily comply with the Clean Power Plan during the pendency of the stay, and help states prepare for a smooth implementation of the Plan if it is ultimately upheld by the courts," said authors Richard Revesz and Alexander Walker.
Broader climate planning hindered
But some state agencies that want to continue planning face obstacles beyond conflicting interpretations of the stay.
In Virginia, lawmakers have blocked the Departmental of Environmental Quality from spending money to prepare for the rule during the stay, although Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe supports the rule.
"We're still trying to get our hands around exactly how far we can go under the stay," said DEQ Air Division Director Michael Dowd. "What does 'prepare' mean, and how much can we study?
"Clearly we're not going to sit down and write a plan or anything like that, but we're going to want to keep up with the latest information," Dowd noted.
He said it's difficult to prepare without knowing where EPA is going with the model trading rules.
"The sooner they give states guidance on that as to what they're thinking, the easier it will be for everyone to hit the ground running once the stay is lifted," he said.
While only supportive state administrations signed on to the letter, many other states are still following modeling on carbon trading that regional grid organizations are pursuing. They would be interested in seeing EPA trading guidelines, too.
The states signing the letter also noted many of them are currently planning for overlapping federal regulations, engaging in routine utility planning, developing state climate and energy plans, and setting renewable energy targets. They would like to be able to consider how the Clean Power Plan might play into those other processes.
Martha Rudolph, environmental director for Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment, said her state is looking at emissions limits involving ozone levels, and "it's prudent to really understand what the full picture is and what it could be."
"That would include the Clean Power Plan," she said.
Rudolph testified earlier this week against a bill that would halt her agency's preparations (ClimateWire, April 28).
She said her department is continuing to talk to stakeholders, utilities, environmental advocates, nongovernmental organizations and coal communities about carbon reduction strategies, although the state Legislature just stripped $112,000 from the agency in an attempt to thwart rule preparations.
Even if the rule or parts of it were overturned by the courts, "some of the way EPA looks at these issues may still be relevant for whatever takes the Clean Power Plan's place," Rudolph said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/29/stories/1060036464
-
Cheniere Shipments Crack Open New Markets for U.S. Gas
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Eight weeks in and seven cargoes out, Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass natural gas liquefaction and export plant has found customers around the world: in Brazil, India, the Middle East and Europe.
The U.S. facility's latest cargo set sail Monday and was destined for Portugal, company officials said. The majority of American liquefied natural gas production may be bound for Europe by 2020, according to the Wood Mackenzie research and consulting firm.
Most European nations are still heavily dependent on Russia for natural gas. Analysts say U.S. LNG supplies, while marginal compared to Norway's and Russia's exports, could have an outsized impact on economies there.
"LNG coming out of the U.S. is probably the single most important thing that will transform the future LNG market," said Melissa Stark, energy managing director and global LNG lead at Accenture. "It heralds the arrival of a global market".
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/29/stories/1060036437
-
Houston Firm Rescinds Crude Transport Request
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Heavy crude oil from Houston-based Plains LPG will not be traveling through 98-year-old pipelines beneath a Michigan river.
Following complaints from residents and concern from state and federal officials earlier this year, Plains has withdrawn a requested permit revision that would have allowed the company to send oil under the St. Clair River, according to statements from Sen. Gary Peters (D) and Michigan Reps. Candice Miller (R) and Debbie Dingell (D).
"We are thrilled to hear that Plains LPG has decided to withdraw its request," Miller and Dingell said in their joint statement Wednesday. "As we've said, given the strong currents in the St. Clair, any spill would quickly spread and have a devastating impact on the entire region."
The two pipelines through which the oil would have traveled are 8 inches in diameter and were built in 1918, State Department documents show. They were updated with 5-inch diameter liners during the 1970s, Plains officials said. But the officials said that they never intended to use the conduits to ship crude oil and that the revision request was only a legal formality.
"An oil spill in Great Lakes waters, especially in an area with strong currents such as the St. Clair River, would have disastrous effects on the valuable freshwater resources that make up our way of life in Michigan," Peters said in his statement. "The significant human and environmental health risks associated with this proposal outweigh its benefits, and I do not believe it serves our national interest."
Peters was among the lawmakers who asked U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to delay a decision on Plains' request. A Plains officials later shared with State copies of correspondence between the company and Dome Petroleum LLC, the pipelines' original owner, in which Dome said it planned to use the lines to carry "crude and other liquid hydrocarbons".
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/29/stories/1060036436
-
Massive Texas Eastern Pipeline Explosion Reported in Southwest Pennsylvania
Apr 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Spectra Energy Corp. said early Friday that it was responding to a massive explosion and fire on a portion of its Texas Eastern pipeline in Westmoreland County, PA, about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) spokesman John Poister said it was unclear exactly what had happened or what part of the pipeline had exploded. He said the blast was reported at about 8:30 a.m. EDT. One person was injured, he said, and taken to a Pittsburgh hospital with what were reportedly severe burns.
"Our first concern is for the safety of the community, our employees and any others who may be affected," Spectra said in a statement. "We have activated our emergency response plan. We are cooperating with authorities in our response, and we will provide more information at a later time."
Videos posted by local residents and footage from news media at the scene showed the fire blazing hundreds of feet into the air. Buildings can also be seen very close to the blast. Poister said it "was a pretty intense fire and explosion." He added that crews have been able to shut off the flow of gas feeding the fire, but he said residual gas was still burning. Other reports were that the fire had been extinguished.
Homes and businesses within a quarter mile of the fire have been evacuated, Poister said. Some residents told local news media that they felt the blast from miles away.
The Westmoreland County Department of Public Safety said the blast occurred in Salem Township just off Route 819. A Hazmat team is on the scene, and the DEP said information was so far scant. Its personnel recently arrived on scene to begin an investigation. Early reports indicated that a natural gas well exploded, but both Spectra and the DEP said the facility that exploded is owned by Texas Eastern Transmission Co. (Tetco).
With 9,096 miles of pipeline, Tetco is a vital piece of infrastructure that connects the Gulf Coast with high-demand markets in the Northeast. Its mainline runs near the area of the blast. The pipeline can transport up to 10.46 Bcf/d. The company had not yet posted any critical notices related to the event on its informational website early Friday.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106233-massive-texas-eastern-pipeline-explosion-reported-in-southwest-pennsylvania
-
Most States Do Bare Minimum on Fire-Foam Contamination
Apr 29, 2016 | Washington Post
By Jennifer McDermott
The military is checking U.S. bases for potential groundwater contamination from a toxic firefighting foam, but most states so far show little inclination to examine civilian sites for the same threat.
The foam was likely used around the country at certain airports, refineries and other sites where catastrophic petroleum fires were a risk, but an Associated Press survey of emergency management, environmental and health agencies in all 50 states showed most haven’t tracked its use and don’t even know whether it was used, where or when.
Only five states — Alaska, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont and Wisconsin — are tracking the chemicals used in the foam and spilled from other sources through ongoing water monitoring or by looking for potentially contaminated sites.
A dozen states are beginning or planning to investigate the chemicals — known as perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs — which have been linked to prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, along with other illnesses. The rest of the states, about two thirds, are waiting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to make a move.
In addition to the Aqueous Film Forming Foam used in disaster preparedness training and in actual fires, PFCs are in many household products and are used to manufacture Teflon.
Knowledge about the chemicals’ effects has been evolving, and the EPA does not regulate them. The agency in 2009 issued guidance on the level at which they are considered harmful to health, but it was only an advisory — not a legally enforceable limit.
The EPA said then that it was assessing the potential risk from short-term exposure through drinking water. It later began studying the health effects from a lifetime of exposure. Those studies remain in progress, and the agency is also considering whether to establish a firm limit on PFCs in water.
The EPA required large public drinking water systems and some smaller ones to check for PFCs between 2013 and 2015.
The full results have not been released because data is still being submitted, but officials in several states told the AP that PFCs were found in their water systems during those checks. Detections were reported by six Massachusetts public water systems, for example.
To date, about 4,800 water systems have submitted their findings to the EPA. About 2 percent so far have reported measurable levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), or both, the agency told the AP on Thursday.
None of the PFOA levels were above the EPA’s guidance, the agency said, but 17 of the PFOS levels were.
But beyond public drinking water, there may be contamination elsewhere that could affect private or other water supplies, including from any use of the firefighting foam. The five states forging ahead with wider tracking for PFCs are going well beyond the EPA’s minimum requirement.
States that are not acting point to the cost of the testing and say nothing in federal law gives them the authority to require water utilities and cities to do it routinely.
“We don’t have the resources to go out beyond what’s required by the EPA at this point,” said Mark Mayer, administrator of the drinking water program for the environmental department in South Dakota. “But we have been paying attention to it because there have been issues in other states.”
A few states could pinpoint situations where the foam had been used. Utah’s fire marshal said the fire service there uses it sparingly and only on large flammable liquid fires, which are rare.
The foam was also used at the state fire school in Delaware, but isn’t anymore, according to the state emergency management agency.
In Issaquah, Washington, a large amount of firefighting foam was sprayed during a tanker fire in 2002 near a well that is now contaminated, though the city said it has not confirmed the source of the pollution. The city is installing a filtration system to remove PFCs from the well water by this summer.
Most states, though, said they have no way of knowing what individual fire departments are using.
Last month, U.S. military officials told the AP they would check 664 sites where fire or crash training was conducted.
The Navy has so far identified one site with contaminated drinking water and another with contaminated groundwater. The Army says there are low levels of PFOA in two drinking water systems.
The Air Force says there are chemicals in drinking water exceeding the EPA’s guidance at three bases, including the former Pease base in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The Air Force has spent millions so far addressing the contamination there.
PFOA was found recently in wells in Vermont, New York and New Hampshire, near where a company making Teflon has plants. Residents in Vermont raised concerns, and the state responded by testing wells and looking for contamination elsewhere, said Danika Frisbie, an official in the state environmental department.
“We’re responding to some pressure to make sure we’re being thorough and planning ahead, and not waiting five to 10 years to see where else PFOA could be,” she said. “I think it’s just a matter of time before all states are dealing with this issue.”
The 12 states that are beginning or planning to investigate the chemicals are California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington and Wyoming.
Details on what the five states actively monitoring for PFCs are doing:
ALASKA
The state is reaching out to agencies and businesses that may have used the foam and so far has found six sites with PFC groundwater contamination, including a fire training center in Fairbanks and at least two nearby private wells.
MINNESOTA
The state’s 3M Co. invented PFOA. It began to phase it out in 2002 in response to health concerns raised by the EPA, but wells near the manufacturer’s disposal sites were contaminated. The state used money from a settlement agreement and consent order with 3M to sample water statewide for PFCs.
State officials say they’re still monitoring groundwater and evaluating clean-up options at the Duluth Air National Guard Base and in the city of Bemidji after contamination was discovered in 2008 from the foam.
NEW JERSEY
State officials say they’re focused on the Federal Aviation Administration’s technical center near Atlantic City, where PFCs have been found in groundwater and in low levels in municipal wells near the center’s fire training area. New Jersey has investigated industrial sites where the chemicals were used, too, and continues to do so.
VERMONT
The state is sampling water at sites where the chemicals were likely used, including at a fire training academy in Pittsford. The state said last week that the results at the academy showed no contamination.
WISCONSIN
The Department of Natural Resources has sampled the groundwater at landfills for PFCs for the past eight years and plans to continue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/most-states-do-bare-minimum-on-fire-foam-contamination/2016/04/29/b170508a-0e0d-11e6-bc53-db634ca94a2a_story.html
-
Toxic Contamination Found on Portions of Tracks at Penn Station
Apr 29, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Andrew Tangel
For all its ills, New York Penn Station can count one more: toxic contamination on at least two of its tracks.
Amtrak has launched a cleanup at the widely ridiculed and crowded station after tests found chemicals known as PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls,...
Full Story found here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/toxic-contamination-found-on-portions-of-tracks-at-penn-station-1461863531
-
Advancing STB Reform: Congress Puts Its Money Where Its Mouth Is
Apr 29, 2016 | Freight Rail Reform
By Rail Customer Coalition
The Senate helped lead the way again on Surface Transportation Board (STB) reform last week, but it might have been easy to miss. As was widely reported, the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee passed a $57 billion measure to fund a number of transportation priorities for fiscal year 2017.
This was good news on many transportation fronts, but it was especially good for the STB. That’s because the bill includes a sizable increase to the Board’s budget by providing an additional $4.6 million.
This increase is most likely the largest the STB has seen in a long time and comes at a pivotal point in the Board’s history. The new funding will help ensure the Board has the necessary resources to fully implement the reforms President Obama recently signed into law that makes significant improvements to how the STB operates. Among other things, the new law requires the STB to—
Expand voluntary arbitration procedures to make rate cases quicker and less costly
Initiate investigations on matters other than rate cases when needed
Set rate review timelines for the stand-alone cost test to ensure the STB efficiently decides on relief
Establish a database of complaints and prepare quarterly reports on them
Expand membership from three to five members and allow board members to talk with one another without a prior public hearing notice
The Rail Customer Coalition wholeheartedly welcomes the budget increase. In fact, the Coalition recently sent a letter to Congressional appropriators urging them to provide this additional funding so the STB could fulfill the intent of Congress.
We applaud the members of the Subcommittee for listening to our request and acting so quickly. This new funding will be critical to bringing the STB into the 21st century, and we call on the rest of Congress to make sure this increase makes it to the President’s desk this year.
https://www.freightrailreform.com/advancing-stb-reform-congress-puts-its-money-where-its-mouth-is/
-
Iowa Identifies Gaps in Crude-by-Rail Safety
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Regulators in Iowa have issued more than two dozen safety recommendations following a close look at their readiness for a rail accident involving oil or ethanol.
The review, conducted by HDR Inc. and Witt O'Brien's LLC consultancies, analyzed known oil and ethanol routes through the state and ranked Iowa's 99 counties by their "sensitivity" to a derailment.
The Iowa Department of Transportation trod carefully in its monthslong analysis to avoid overstepping federal authorities or provoking the eight railroads that haul hazardous materials through the state.
Diane McCauley, policy analyst with the DOT, said the goal was not to lay out new requirements, but rather to encourage conversation among the state government, federal officials and the private sector, while identifying areas for improvement.
"Yes, we have our struggles, but the lines of communication are open," she said of the DOT's relationship with industry. "We looked at [the study] as a way to bring the stakeholders together for safety and efficiency but not necessarily to create new regulations or constrain economic development."
Tamara Nicholson, director of the DOT's Office of Rail Transportation, said her agency wasn't "working to impose additional rules or regulations on the transportation of these materials, as is being done in other states."
State crude-by-rail rules in other regions have pulled transportation departments and utility commissions into legal hot water, as the Federal Railroad Administration normally retains sole authority for overseeing train safety.
But Iowa's study found some flaws in the way federal safety standards have played out at the local level. For instance, the report determined that a May 2014 federal order to make railroads disclose oil train routes hasn't always been helpful, given that railroads are only required to send updated notifications when traffic levels change by 25 percent or more.
"The 25 percent range of change in volume is too broad for some local planners to be comfortable about knowing how much crude oil is being transported through their community," the study concluded, recommending the state's DOT and its Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department take up the issue with federal regulators.
'Costly ... difficult' changes needed
Tank cars hauling the flammable commodities have jumped the tracks and exploded in past accidents, including fatal crashes in Cherry Valley, Ill., in 2009 and in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in 2013. The study urged regulators to consider "costly ... difficult to accomplish" improvements at grade crossings where train tracks intersect with roads -- the site of the Cherry Valley ethanol disaster that killed one motorist and injured nine others.
While crude passing through Iowa primarily comes from North Dakota's Bakken Shale and other distant oil fields, the state produced and shipped nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol last year, according to industry estimates. The dual hazard of ethanol and oil train derailments prompted regulators to commission a study in July 2015.
McCauley pointed out that ethanol and oil shipments only account for a small fraction of train traffic moving through the state, and the downturn in oil markets has made safety less of a "huge concern" on the oil front.
"The ethanol has dropped some, but not nearly the extent of the crude oil that I'm aware of," she said, "so we feel that [the study] still came up with some very valid results and very good information to deal with, even if crude does fall clear off the map."
The findings and recommendations were released last Friday, and the Iowa DOT will meet next month to draft a timeline for following up on the recommendations.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/29/stories/1060036461
-
Why Cities Are So Well-Suited to Renewable-Energy Growth
Apr 29, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kate Gordon
Last week, 175 countries signed onto a global agreement to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the face of the threat of climate change. Many of those same countries—particularly India, China, and Nigeria—are simultaneously experiencing major urbanization trends that will move billions of people into cities over the next several decades. In fact, according to the United Nations, approximately 2.5 billion people will likely join the world’s urban population by 2050, almost entirely in Asia and Africa. By that time, two-thirds of the world’s population is projected to be living in urban areas, according to the United Nations.
In the past, we’ve always seen urbanization and increased energy use go hand in hand, as rural workers move to cities and gain a more middle-class, consumer-oriented lifestyle. But the challenge of global warming means that today’s urbanization has to follow a different path, one that’s actually sustainable for both individuals and the climate.
The great news is that cities are the perfect proving ground for some of the most important technologies that will anchor a lower-carbon future: renewable energy systems. As cities become larger and more centralized–and especially if city planners prioritize density over sprawl–they have the opportunity to bring massive amounts of renewable energy onto existing power grids and also to pioneer new, more distributed energy models. In doing so, these new global cities can become models for bringing down emissions while also becoming far more resilient in the face of increased extreme weather events and other catastrophic climate impacts.
Why are cities so well-suited to renewable energy growth? Simply put, cities are where the people are.
Locating a large wind or solar power system miles away from consumers can cause up to 15% loss through transmission alone. It can also create major rate increases to pay for transmission and distribution infrastructure. In contrast, locating smaller solar systems within cities requires less transmission and provides more consistent power. In places like California, where communities are allowed to jointly own or lease solar systems through “shared solar” programs, these benefits are being realized today. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that if other U.S. cities adopted similar policies, that shared solar could represent nearly 50% of the distributed solar market in 2020 in this country alone.
Dense urban areas can also take advantage of smaller “microgrids,” which can either connect into the larger grid or disconnect from it in extreme weather events or other grid emergencies. From New York to Yanqing, a small county near Beijing, urban centers around the world are embracing microgrids as a way to deploy lower-carbon electricity while increasing resilience in the face of natural or national security risks to the grid. These can be powered by a variety of renewable sources, including solar and wind, combined with more consistent “baseload” power from geothermal power stations, gas turbines, or fuel cells.
One of the major benefits of renewable energy over fossil-based energy, other than the obvious fact of renewables bringing down carbon emissions, is that renewable systems can be placed anywhere and aren’t dependent on moving fuels from production sites to generation sites. But there are downsides, including that many renewable energy sources are intermittent. The sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow all the time, critics argue, whereas coal can be burned 24/7.
Herein lies another benefit of cities: the ability for city dwellers to use today’s technologies, specifically electric cars, as batteries to store renewable energy. The wind mostly blows at night—so urban residents can charge their cars at night and capture that energy, turning it into driving miles the next day. Same with cars plugged in during the day at work sites during peak sun shine hours. As battery technology gets more and more advanced, urban transportation networks will also become electrical storage networks.
Cities are increasingly realizing these benefits. Las Vegas has committed to becoming a 100% renewable energy city by 2017, powered in large party by a huge utility-scale solar power system being built in nearby Eldorado Valley. The city of Zhangjiakou in northern China has promised to become 80% powered by renewables by 2030, and could even become an energy exporter to the surrounding Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region if strong interconnection policies are put in place.
Now is the time for cities across the globe, especially those springing up in Asia and Africa, to embrace renewable energy technology to power their homes and businesses. In doing so, these cities can leapfrog the old-school development models of the West and become the new model for sustainable and resilient development in the 21st century.
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/04/29/why-cities-are-so-well-suited-to-renewable-energy-growth/
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested